Sunday Dialogue: Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet

Readers debate the benefits and drawbacks of requiring real names in online postings.

The Letter

To the Editor:

Facebook has 800 million users who are required to use their real names (“Naming Names: Rushdie Wins Facebook Fight,” front page, Nov. 15), and, as a result, are identified with and accountable for what they post. It is time to consider Facebook’s real-name policy as an Internet norm because online identification demonstrably leads to accountability and promotes civility.

People who are able to post anonymously (or pseudonymously) are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful consequences, such as the suicides of cyberbullied young people. The abuse extends to hate-filled and inflammatory comments appended to the online versions of newspaper articles — comments that hijack legitimate discussions of current events and discourage people from participating.

Anonymity also facilitates the posting of anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic content across the Web.

To be sure, there is value in someone being able to use the Internet without being identified. Online privacy is a major issue today. And in the United States, we have had a great tradition of anonymous political speech. Elsewhere, dissidents in oppressive regimes have felt free to speak up precisely because they believe (perhaps erroneously) that they cannot be identified.

This is not a matter for government, given the strictures of the First Amendment. But it is time for Internet intermediaries voluntarily to consider requiring either the use of real names (or registration with the online service) in circumstances, such as the comments section for news articles, where the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.

There is no bright-line test, but Internet sites permitting user-generated postings can make a judgment that in some instances the use of real names benefits society.

CHRISTOPHER WOLFWashington, Nov. 20, 2011

The writer is an Internet and privacy attorney and leads the Internet Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League.

Readers React

When striking down a law prohibiting anonymous distribution of leaflets, the Supreme Court wrote that anonymity serves “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”

It’s no secret that some people use anonymity to say vile things about others. But before urging the likes of Facebook and Google to banish such speech, think about the gay person who isn’t in a position to come out in the “real world,” but feels comfortable doing so online. Those who need help with personal problems. Those with political opinions they don’t want their bosses to hear.

Or think about your younger self, and whether you’d want everything you said as a teenager to be permanently linked to your real name.

Ugly insults are just one small part of all the free speech that anonymity makes possible, and it’s not worth closing the door on all that speech to make the world more polite.

In my years of active engagement as a commenter on various Web sites, I have consistently used my full name, which means that I try to say only what I truly believe, say it respectfully, and say only those things that I am willing to have permanently attached to my name.

That said, I think there should also be the option of anonymity, if not in registering on a site, at least in one’s posting. There have been a few times when I have participated in a discussion of a topic that is personal or sensitive for me. In order to protect my own privacy and the privacy of family or friends, I have, in such discussions, used only part of my name or even just my location.

I have a rather easily identifiable name. To require that I use my full name at all times would be to silence me on some topics on which I have meaningful experience to contribute.

ANNE-MARIE HISLOPChicago, Nov. 21, 2011

My partners and I are the proprietors of The Robing Room (www.therobingroom.com), which permits lawyers and laypersons to post anonymous evaluations of judges in the federal and state courts. Without doubt our participation rate would fall precipitously if we insisted that posters identify themselves, and the public would lose the benefit of a frank, public forum to discuss the merits — and demerits — of sitting judges.

That said, we agree that a judge should not be left solely at the mercy of anonymous posters, and on occasion we remove inappropriate comments.

My partners and I are all for online civility, but we are not willing to sacrifice a robust public forum to achieve it.

RICHARD LEVITTNew York, Nov. 21, 2011

Mr. Wolf astutely observes that anonymity online can unlock people’s rage. Why not vent bigotry, spread lies or threaten others if no one can identify us to hold us accountable?

Intermediaries’ insistence that users employ their real names might stem the tide of incivility and hate online. But its costs may not outweigh its benefits. Without anonymity, victims of domestic violence and sexual assault might not join online survivors groups for fear that their abusers might discover them.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teenagers might decline to seek advice about coping with bullying. Blogging may be less attractive to women; writing under female names raises one’s risk of cyberharassment.

Rather than a mandatory real-name policy, intermediaries ought to adopt anonymity as their default setting, a privilege that can be lost by harming others in ways that intermediaries find unacceptable. That preserves anonymity’s upside potential and potentially forestalls its downside.

DANIELLE KEATS CITRONBaltimore, Nov. 21, 2011

The writer is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law.

Mr. Wolf underestimates the risk that employees of many institutions would incur if they posted their opinions in public for attribution. A post need not be a flame or a troll to endanger someone’s livelihood. I can’t be the only person who would have to stop posting if I had to take ownership of everything I said.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

It could be argued that I would not lose much if I censored myself. But there is a centuries-old tradition of using noms de plume when commenting on the issues of the day. I would like to see it stay that way. This comment, at least, I can claim.

JULIA HOLCOMBLeesburg, Va., Nov. 21, 2011

There is an element of risk associated with attaching one’s name to an individual opinion made public.

On the other hand, expressing an opinion lacking the element of risk is usually not worthwhile.

WILLIAM SCARBROUGHColumbus, Ind., Nov. 21, 2011

My thoughtful friend Chris Wolf is correct that real-name policies on the Internet promote civility. But they also inhibit us from saying controversial things, which is why they are powerful. And dangerous.

Imagine a Facebook-style real-name policy applied to the whole Internet. Everything we said could be linked to us. Forever. On controversial topics, this can deter speech.

Real-name policies reduce some (but not most) offensive speech, but they also deter people from contributing thoughtfully to controversial topics. Many of the strongest arguments for anonymous speech were made by the N.A.A.C.P. and other dissidents in the 1950s and 1960s. Their political opponents wanted to obtain their names in order to retaliate against them. Sometimes anonymity allows us to speak the unpopular truth.

Anonymous speech can be abused, but it can be useful. And the bad can be impossible to separate from the good. It’s like a lot of our other civil liberties in that respect.

NEIL M. RICHARDSSt. Louis, Nov. 21, 2011

The writer is a professor of law at Washington University.

Mr. Wolf undercuts his own argument against online anonymity very effectively. After stating, without proof, that real-name policies promote civility, he then cites America’s great tradition of anonymous political speech, the benefits of anonymity for dissidents in oppressive regimes, and the First Amendment complications of enforcing any such policy all before concluding that the use of real names benefits society “in some instances.”

It appears that Mr. Wolf disagrees with himself almost as much as I do.

TONY BOZANICHNew York, Nov. 21, 2011

Mr. Wolf states that “the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.” I strongly disagree.

Free expression is enhanced by anonymity. Unfortunately our society tends to vilify those who express a minority opinion. Atheists, homosexuals and others may well expect retaliation for expressing their views openly online. The ability to remain anonymous online offers minorities the protection they need to make themselves heard.

While I agree that cyberbullying is a problem that must be addressed, a more appropriate response to overtly abusive online behavior is to have vigilant site managers.

Otherwise, the occasional lack of civility is a consequence of a robust tradition of free speech and should not be encumbered.

Mr. Wolf confirms what I have experienced all too often when he writes that allowing anonymous or pseudonymous names on Internet commentary sites leads to abusive “comments that hijack legitimate discussions of current events and discourage people from participating.”

Both online and offline, not a day goes by without someone bemoaning the polarizing atmosphere that pollutes our political landscape. More than ever, we need to search out and interact with people who are not members of our own choir. The Internet provides a great resource for doing this.

What about encouraging Internet sites to have two sets of commentary — one would be anonymous, and the other would use real names. The use of real names would promote civility and genuine dialogue. The anonymous site would preserve the “great tradition of anonymous political speech.”

That would give the reader a choice.

BILL SWEENEYShorewood, Wis., Nov. 21, 2011

The Writer Responds

My proposal for Internet companies to consider, in appropriate circumstances, a real-name policy decidedly does not include a call for the end of anonymity on the Internet.

To be clear, I agree that free expression, which anonymity promotes, is a cherished value. I agree with several of the writers, including Ms. Hislop, Ms. Holcomb, Ms. Crump and Professor Citron, that real-name identification could lead to harassment of and retaliation against vulnerable people or those expressing unpopular positions, and free expression could be stifled. I understand why a gay teenager would want to communicate under a pseudonym to avoid being bullied at school.

But human dignity is also a cherished value. And uninhibited free expression online promoted by anonymity can result in an assault on human dignity in ways that pamphlets on street corners never could.

The anonymity enjoyed by the gay teenager as a shield can be used as a sword against people like him by online bullies and hate groups. Anonymity can indeed lead to harm. The online hacking group Anonymous, dedicated to committing harm, chose its name advisedly. Anonymity is not going away. So a balance can be struck between ensuring the opportunity to participate online for those whose rights will be advanced by anonymity and ensuring that free expression and human dignity are not hijacked by those hiding behind online anonymity, who intentionally want to hurt others and disrupt civil discourse.

Requiring commenters to use real names demonstrably promotes civil discourse, as does moderating comments, as some newspapers, like The Times, have demonstrated. And I like the idea of sites giving priority placement to those who use their real names.

Fundamentally, as someone fighting online hate, I wish that Internet companies would do more to police online hate speech and enforce their terms of service, and if they did so, there would be less need for a real-name policy.

A version of this letter appears in print on November 27, 2011, on Page SR2 of the New York edition with the headline: Sunday Dialogue: Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet. Today's Paper|Subscribe